Private and IR
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Donkeys
The real question, I think, is which is more applicable to a *PPL* / IR type of flight.
For the UK, I find the IMC Rating entirely adequate for private and business flight. Unless you fly a deiced turbocharged plane, preferably a twin, with oxygen, there are not many journeys where having a full IR will make a flight possible, over the IMC rating. I fly on business quite a bit (very well equipped non turbo, non press, retract SEP) and have not yet seen a contrary to this in the UK although I suppose there must be some and I would be certainly interested in examples.
So, the real use of the IR is for European flying.
Recently I have met quite a lot of people who are building hours for the ATPL and who have done the JAA IR ground school. I have seen the sort of exam questions there are, and the syllabus. I am enough technically minded and would have no problem getting through the stuff I saw but equally it is obvious to me that most of it is not applicable to the most common PPL/IR application i.e. flying around UK and Europe, private and business, in a non-jet non-press aircraft, VFR when possible for the view, IFR/airways when necessary or desired.
As for navigation, owners of modern aircraft practically all use a decent GPS as primary, with VOR/DME. Certainly navigation as taught at PPL level is grossly inadequate for UK/European airspace flying and no doubt this is one reason why most new PPLs pack it in very quickly indeed, but anyone who has a real reason to fly is going to have the incentive to do it properly, and they will see right away the need for an IR and for a plane equipped to go with that - and we aren't talking about a 1970 PA28 with a VOR receiver. The standard of navigation easily achieved with modern kit is way beyond what is taught.
The FAA IR, with an FAA Class 3 medical, is probably "right" for what I believe is the intended usage. I have not seen any evidence from the USA to the contrary. After that, any comparisons become completely irrelevant against varying currency. Currency, especially on type, counts for so much more than what exams you sat a few years ago.
I think it's a pity that there isn't a FAA-like dedicated PPL/IR in Europe.
Of course any commercial operation or ambitions are a different thing, for lots of reasons.
The real question, I think, is which is more applicable to a *PPL* / IR type of flight.
For the UK, I find the IMC Rating entirely adequate for private and business flight. Unless you fly a deiced turbocharged plane, preferably a twin, with oxygen, there are not many journeys where having a full IR will make a flight possible, over the IMC rating. I fly on business quite a bit (very well equipped non turbo, non press, retract SEP) and have not yet seen a contrary to this in the UK although I suppose there must be some and I would be certainly interested in examples.
So, the real use of the IR is for European flying.
Recently I have met quite a lot of people who are building hours for the ATPL and who have done the JAA IR ground school. I have seen the sort of exam questions there are, and the syllabus. I am enough technically minded and would have no problem getting through the stuff I saw but equally it is obvious to me that most of it is not applicable to the most common PPL/IR application i.e. flying around UK and Europe, private and business, in a non-jet non-press aircraft, VFR when possible for the view, IFR/airways when necessary or desired.
As for navigation, owners of modern aircraft practically all use a decent GPS as primary, with VOR/DME. Certainly navigation as taught at PPL level is grossly inadequate for UK/European airspace flying and no doubt this is one reason why most new PPLs pack it in very quickly indeed, but anyone who has a real reason to fly is going to have the incentive to do it properly, and they will see right away the need for an IR and for a plane equipped to go with that - and we aren't talking about a 1970 PA28 with a VOR receiver. The standard of navigation easily achieved with modern kit is way beyond what is taught.
The FAA IR, with an FAA Class 3 medical, is probably "right" for what I believe is the intended usage. I have not seen any evidence from the USA to the contrary. After that, any comparisons become completely irrelevant against varying currency. Currency, especially on type, counts for so much more than what exams you sat a few years ago.
I think it's a pity that there isn't a FAA-like dedicated PPL/IR in Europe.
Of course any commercial operation or ambitions are a different thing, for lots of reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No argument with any of that... for the private pilot, as you say.
I suspect that the ground exams could be relaxed somewhat for the private pilot, but my own suggestion would be that this should take the form of permitting 100% self-study, as with the US. In this way, people don't have to take time out of work just to go to refresher courses.
Currently, the time off paid employment on top of time spent flight training is what puts a lot of would-be IRs off.
2D
I suspect that the ground exams could be relaxed somewhat for the private pilot, but my own suggestion would be that this should take the form of permitting 100% self-study, as with the US. In this way, people don't have to take time out of work just to go to refresher courses.
Currently, the time off paid employment on top of time spent flight training is what puts a lot of would-be IRs off.
2D
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Donkeys
I think that a PPL/IR will have a different reason to do it from someone doing a CPL/IR or ATPL. Most likely it will be for intensive leisure flying and/or for business travel. And the money involved in that will mean a decent plane to go with it - every current PPL/IR I know falls into that category. These people aren't usually skint. As for kit, a GNS430/530 is the baseline - how many miles is that from the 1960s syllabus?
Whereas a CPL/ATPL person is going to be looking for an airline or other commercial job, and most of them seem variously skint, to the point of doing a FI for a £10/day retainer, for a few years, on the way there. Plenty of time to do the exams!
Some of the syllabus I saw seems completely bizzare, e.g. the operation of AND/OR logic gates. Great... throw in a bit of college electronics here and there. As one 60+ ATPL with 25k hours said to me, it's great for sorting out the men from the sheep. But necessary, let alone relevant? You could just have a bog standard IQ test or one of those specialised "engineering aptitude" tests.
The PPL/IR syllabus should be tailored to the private pilot's requirements. But with the regulatory bodies being stuffed with airline pilot types, and presumably with the whole of JAA member countries having to agree...?
I think that a PPL/IR will have a different reason to do it from someone doing a CPL/IR or ATPL. Most likely it will be for intensive leisure flying and/or for business travel. And the money involved in that will mean a decent plane to go with it - every current PPL/IR I know falls into that category. These people aren't usually skint. As for kit, a GNS430/530 is the baseline - how many miles is that from the 1960s syllabus?
Whereas a CPL/ATPL person is going to be looking for an airline or other commercial job, and most of them seem variously skint, to the point of doing a FI for a £10/day retainer, for a few years, on the way there. Plenty of time to do the exams!
Some of the syllabus I saw seems completely bizzare, e.g. the operation of AND/OR logic gates. Great... throw in a bit of college electronics here and there. As one 60+ ATPL with 25k hours said to me, it's great for sorting out the men from the sheep. But necessary, let alone relevant? You could just have a bog standard IQ test or one of those specialised "engineering aptitude" tests.
The PPL/IR syllabus should be tailored to the private pilot's requirements. But with the regulatory bodies being stuffed with airline pilot types, and presumably with the whole of JAA member countries having to agree...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got no problem with a self study route, I was just curious as to why there was 7 exams to take. There is no doubt that the written exams under JAR are harder, and easier under the FAA, but does this make the FAA instrument pilot any worse than the JAA instrument pilot?....
Speaking of hard exam questions, this is why you pay your £000's for the ATPL ground school....
Q: CONTRACTING STATES SHALL CARRY OUT THE HANDLING, FORWARDING AND CLEARANCE OF AIRMAIL AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY PROCEDURES AS PRESCRIBED:
1) By IATA and accepted contracting States
2) By IATA and accepted by ICAO
3) By the regional post office
4) In the Acts of force of the Unversal Postal Union
[answers on a post card]
Speaking of hard exam questions, this is why you pay your £000's for the ATPL ground school....
Q: CONTRACTING STATES SHALL CARRY OUT THE HANDLING, FORWARDING AND CLEARANCE OF AIRMAIL AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY PROCEDURES AS PRESCRIBED:
1) By IATA and accepted contracting States
2) By IATA and accepted by ICAO
3) By the regional post office
4) In the Acts of force of the Unversal Postal Union
[answers on a post card]
JAR ATPLs are undoubtedly harder than US equivalents but that does not make them more relevant to flying in the real world. Air law questions on the distnce between lights on a mast? You've got to be joking!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bedford
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - I concur with your thoughts exactly and have been musing with the idea of proposing (with support from fellow aviators ) a new rating via AOPA, CAA etc. to put on the table in front of the soon to be formed EASA i.e. in the name of safety. This rating would replace the IMC with a new standard akin to the FAA/IR, which as discussed would pretty well fit the bill and engender European wide acceptance, as opposed to the IWR which died a death!
I propose a name of IRP for IR Private (GA community target) and looking through LASORS my initial proposal would include:
a. 35 hours instrument time under instruction
b. Up to 10 hours of the 35 required to be allowed in a CAA approved simulator
c. An appropriate examination syllabus, which will major on weather and in particular, icing - how it's formed, effects, avoidance etc. The syllabus will be formed from the most relevant sections of existing material PLUS the addition of GPS and autopilot usage etc.
d. Revalidation by test after 13 months.
Not going to carry on with ideas for course pre-requisites - just thought I'd float the idea and see what you folks thought!
I'm posting this as a potential customer relatively new to this world and with no 'baggage' of any previous dealings with these august bodies. I have over the past couple of years read these same threads time and again and I think everyone is in broad agreement re: relative merits of the IMC v. IR - and it stikes me there is clearly a large void that requires a rating. In my view the CAA etc. are our agents and I think we have the right to campaign for an imrovement to our safety and enjoyment.
Well I feel better now Seriously though, I do intend to start the ball rolling with a note to AOPA - what do you think?!
) a new rating via AOPA, CAA etc. to put on the table in front of the soon to be formed EASA i.e. in the name of safety. This rating would replace the IMC with a new standard akin to the FAA/IR, which as discussed would pretty well fit the bill and engender European wide acceptance, as opposed to the IWR which died a death! I propose a name of IRP for IR Private (GA community target) and looking through LASORS my initial proposal would include:
a. 35 hours instrument time under instruction
b. Up to 10 hours of the 35 required to be allowed in a CAA approved simulator
c. An appropriate examination syllabus, which will major on weather and in particular, icing - how it's formed, effects, avoidance etc. The syllabus will be formed from the most relevant sections of existing material PLUS the addition of GPS and autopilot usage etc.
d. Revalidation by test after 13 months.
Not going to carry on with ideas for course pre-requisites - just thought I'd float the idea and see what you folks thought!
I'm posting this as a potential customer relatively new to this world and with no 'baggage' of any previous dealings with these august bodies. I have over the past couple of years read these same threads time and again and I think everyone is in broad agreement re: relative merits of the IMC v. IR - and it stikes me there is clearly a large void that requires a rating. In my view the CAA etc. are our agents and I think we have the right to campaign for an imrovement to our safety and enjoyment.
Well I feel better now
Seriously though, I do intend to start the ball rolling with a note to AOPA - what do you think?!
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi RedChilli.
I think this topic's been done to death many a time before. My long-departed mum used to talk about the "initiation ceremony - I had to go through it, so you all will if you want to join the club". The JAA IR is a bit like that for a PPL. Relevance to the situation at hand is not required. For CPL and ATPL, I can see the point. But then the CPL and ATPL exams should cover those bits already, surely? Can a CPL or ATPL be relevant without an IR?
For me, flying is a hobby - an expensive one. I want to be able to fly IFR, when it's safe (and to know when that is). There is no way I would contemplate a JAA IR with all the palaver and extended IQ/memory tests that entails. Nor would I want an IR that involves the full flight test (and a fee in the order of £500) every year.
The IMC rating does most of what I want, but isn't valid outside the UK.
So I did the FAA IR, and am looking round for an N-reg single. I'm hoping our group will move the group Arrow to the N reg (we have a US citizen associated with the group, so that bit's done).
I wish you joy with the campaign with AOPA-UK, but don't hold out much hope.
I think this topic's been done to death many a time before. My long-departed mum used to talk about the "initiation ceremony - I had to go through it, so you all will if you want to join the club". The JAA IR is a bit like that for a PPL. Relevance to the situation at hand is not required. For CPL and ATPL, I can see the point. But then the CPL and ATPL exams should cover those bits already, surely? Can a CPL or ATPL be relevant without an IR?
For me, flying is a hobby - an expensive one. I want to be able to fly IFR, when it's safe (and to know when that is). There is no way I would contemplate a JAA IR with all the palaver and extended IQ/memory tests that entails. Nor would I want an IR that involves the full flight test (and a fee in the order of £500) every year.
The IMC rating does most of what I want, but isn't valid outside the UK.
So I did the FAA IR, and am looking round for an N-reg single. I'm hoping our group will move the group Arrow to the N reg (we have a US citizen associated with the group, so that bit's done).
I wish you joy with the campaign with AOPA-UK, but don't hold out much hope.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bedford
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes thanks Keef - essentially, a JAA version of the FAA/IR would do the trick. I think we're on the same square as I effectively want a Europe wide IMC (beefed up as required). If this proposal idea hits multiple brick walls, as it may do 'cos it almost in my view smacks of.....common sense (eek!), then I will probably follow the same path - but really why should I have to when we should be able to lead the way and improve safety at the same time 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Chilli
Sounds very good, but as Keef points out, all the time there is the N-reg alternative (available to UK residents) few prospective UK PPL/IR pilots will take the time to support it.
Most serious private flyers I know are either already N-reg or are working towards it. They tend to be owners, or in a group with others with same usage, so N-reg is not a problem, and there are other benefits e.g. owner maintenance, various savings, and ability to fit FAA STC'd items.
The FAA Class 3 medical is also potentially very valuable in its own right. For example, most UK NPPL recruits are 50+ men who already have the PPL but who now fail the CAA Class 2 medical, and according to a CAA man I spoke to recently the average NPPL age is 60. The FAA C3 med has (I am told) no ECG and no audiogram, and despite the reluctance of the CAA to lower the standards for a PPL/IR there is no evidence (from the USA) that this causes any statistically visible problems. So I have no idea why the CAA are being so pedantic about it. Unfortunately - given the N-reg option - the attractiveness of an easier PPL/IR will be undermined if it still requires the CAA Class 2 medical (plus some of Class 1 such as the audiogram).
There are also obvious "PPL/IR-type" planes e.g. the Cirrus SR22 which presently have to be N-reg anyway.
The situation would change if the CAA did what the French DGAC has just proposed, i.e. to shaft French-resident N-reg owners by allowing them a max of 6 months. (The FAA apparently allows only 6 months after which a US-based plane has to go onto the N-reg, so the French are going to do the same; one can speculate as to the trigger for this
) So the DGAC is going to force a lot of their frequent private flyers into the JAA IR.
Sounds very good, but as Keef points out, all the time there is the N-reg alternative (available to UK residents) few prospective UK PPL/IR pilots will take the time to support it.
Most serious private flyers I know are either already N-reg or are working towards it. They tend to be owners, or in a group with others with same usage, so N-reg is not a problem, and there are other benefits e.g. owner maintenance, various savings, and ability to fit FAA STC'd items.
The FAA Class 3 medical is also potentially very valuable in its own right. For example, most UK NPPL recruits are 50+ men who already have the PPL but who now fail the CAA Class 2 medical, and according to a CAA man I spoke to recently the average NPPL age is 60. The FAA C3 med has (I am told) no ECG and no audiogram, and despite the reluctance of the CAA to lower the standards for a PPL/IR there is no evidence (from the USA) that this causes any statistically visible problems. So I have no idea why the CAA are being so pedantic about it. Unfortunately - given the N-reg option - the attractiveness of an easier PPL/IR will be undermined if it still requires the CAA Class 2 medical (plus some of Class 1 such as the audiogram).
There are also obvious "PPL/IR-type" planes e.g. the Cirrus SR22 which presently have to be N-reg anyway.
The situation would change if the CAA did what the French DGAC has just proposed, i.e. to shaft French-resident N-reg owners by allowing them a max of 6 months. (The FAA apparently allows only 6 months after which a US-based plane has to go onto the N-reg, so the French are going to do the same; one can speculate as to the trigger for this
) So the DGAC is going to force a lot of their frequent private flyers into the JAA IR.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540-C4D5D,
If true, what the French are doing is an interesting little twist. So the poor little GA pilot gets the shaft again for the glory of a European JAA which can challenge the US FAA.
I'd also be a bit worried about the FAA (or more likely TSA) coming out and saying N regs have to be based in the USA. That would shaft a lot of poor GA pilots all over the world, and there is no evidence that will happen.
If the French are doing this "because it's what the Americans do" I expect the French to recognise ICAO IR licences and training the same way the Americans do when converting from one regime to another. Fat chance of that of course, one thing the French and Americans do have in common is they both only obey international protocols when it suits them
If true, what the French are doing is an interesting little twist. So the poor little GA pilot gets the shaft again for the glory of a European JAA which can challenge the US FAA.
I'd also be a bit worried about the FAA (or more likely TSA) coming out and saying N regs have to be based in the USA. That would shaft a lot of poor GA pilots all over the world, and there is no evidence that will happen.
If the French are doing this "because it's what the Americans do" I expect the French to recognise ICAO IR licences and training the same way the Americans do when converting from one regime to another. Fat chance of that of course, one thing the French and Americans do have in common is they both only obey international protocols when it suits them
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading an article in an American publication on the subject of radio communication misunderstandings, and related incidents. The article did not make it clear whether or not the Americans have a radio licence test procedure like the UK one.
Could those that know please clarify.
Could those that know please clarify.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slim_slag
Never let the facts get in the way of a good xenophobic rant. I would recommend a browse on the DGAC Website.
The DGAC does accept other ICAO IRs, including the FAA IR, and it will endorse such licences for use in French aircraft, provided that the licence holder is not an EU resident.
In this way, the FAA or other ICAO licence can't be used as a quick way to a back-door JAA IR.
We won't even go that far in the UK.
2D
Never let the facts get in the way of a good xenophobic rant. I would recommend a browse on the DGAC Website.
The DGAC does accept other ICAO IRs, including the FAA IR, and it will endorse such licences for use in French aircraft, provided that the licence holder is not an EU resident.
In this way, the FAA or other ICAO licence can't be used as a quick way to a back-door JAA IR.
We won't even go that far in the UK.
2D
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Chilli,
I've just seen this post and very much support you. I don't seem to fit in the mould either - I learnt in an UAS a little over 10 years ago, have an IMC & like flying round France & Ireland, so its a right royal pain I can't use it over there. But I don't earn or fly enough to afford time & cost for a full JAA IR. Also I don't intend to go commercial so an appropriate EU IR for private flyers would have me signed up for the training.
I know the subject has been raised before but, as I always hear, "its been tried before and didn't work" is THE WORST reason for not trying again. I'm sure there are others who think the same & some UK based flying schools that could benefit by potential more customers like me. It would be great to get AOPA to do something for us now & again.
D&O
I've just seen this post and very much support you. I don't seem to fit in the mould either - I learnt in an UAS a little over 10 years ago, have an IMC & like flying round France & Ireland, so its a right royal pain I can't use it over there. But I don't earn or fly enough to afford time & cost for a full JAA IR. Also I don't intend to go commercial so an appropriate EU IR for private flyers would have me signed up for the training.
I know the subject has been raised before but, as I always hear, "its been tried before and didn't work" is THE WORST reason for not trying again. I'm sure there are others who think the same & some UK based flying schools that could benefit by potential more customers like me. It would be great to get AOPA to do something for us now & again.
D&O
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree broadly with your proposal, RC
But would have a couple of variations :
Single-pilot IFR in a light piston, particularly without A/P, is the most demanding variation of the genre - 35 hours is not enough training. If anything it should be more than the CPL equivalent since most new-minted CPLs will be closely supervised and "Captained" for a very long time.
A "test" every 13 months? I prefer the FAA "review" - do it till you get it right rather than one strike and you're out.
Allowing training in the subject's own machine would be the single biggest cost-saving mechanism - the approved school lobby would probably squash that one.
Single-pilot IFR in a light piston, particularly without A/P, is the most demanding variation of the genre - 35 hours is not enough training. If anything it should be more than the CPL equivalent since most new-minted CPLs will be closely supervised and "Captained" for a very long time.
A "test" every 13 months? I prefer the FAA "review" - do it till you get it right rather than one strike and you're out.
Allowing training in the subject's own machine would be the single biggest cost-saving mechanism - the approved school lobby would probably squash that one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Chilli,
Your idea sounds excellent to me, the only bit I would like to change is the
What might be better is to have a "rolling currency" like the FAA IR. If your logbook contains the relevant requirements [6 approaches, navigation by navaids, holding etc] in the previous 6 months then you're legal to fly IFR in IMC. If not, then you have a further 6 months to get airbourne and do these requirements in VMC with a safety pilot before you can fly in IMC again. If you go over the extended 6 months, then you can become current again with a flight with an authorised instructor / examiner. Should you not fly IFR / IMC for more than 24 months then I think it would be fair to have a revalidation by test.
Also [for obvious reasons] I'd like to see previous instrument time count towards the course, with maybe a core mandatory course of say 5 hrs or something.....
Cheers
EA
Your idea sounds excellent to me, the only bit I would like to change is the
d. Revalidation by test after 13 months.
Also [for obvious reasons
] I'd like to see previous instrument time count towards the course, with maybe a core mandatory course of say 5 hrs or something.....Cheers
EA
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with EA, curency is maintained by your log book plus the fact that you have your BFR where you will shoot couple of approaches anyway.
The other thing to remember is that under the FAA System you can also do the approaches on an 'approved flight training device' - sorry MS Flight Sim wont count
- with an instructor present and count those towards your currency.
The other thing to remember is that under the FAA System you can also do the approaches on an 'approved flight training device' - sorry MS Flight Sim wont count
- with an instructor present and count those towards your currency.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points need clearing up here.
£500 examiners fee for an IR renewal is complete nonsense. £150 is more usual plus in a single about 1 hour flight time (usually less).
Training in ones own aircraft is allowed for the IR now. No reason to expect this will change. The main requirements are that the aircraft requires approval from the CAA in particular the provision of screens and appropriate equipment. The cost of this will be much less than the savings from operating your own aircraft.
£500 examiners fee for an IR renewal is complete nonsense. £150 is more usual plus in a single about 1 hour flight time (usually less).
Training in ones own aircraft is allowed for the IR now. No reason to expect this will change. The main requirements are that the aircraft requires approval from the CAA in particular the provision of screens and appropriate equipment. The cost of this will be much less than the savings from operating your own aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slim_slag
Forcing N-reg owners to be US-based would upset an awful lot more than private pilots; there are many N-reg commercial (cargo etc) operations all over the world, plus Caribbean passenger operations, etc.
2Donkeys
What you appear to be saying is that an American with an FAA IR visiting France can rent an F-reg plane and, subject to getting the endorsement from the DGAC, he can fly IFR. That is in line with most other countries AFAIK; an endorsement is required but generally obtainable in each case. The UK CAA won't give an FAA IR full IR privileges in a G-reg plane but will give you the full IMC Rating; this comes close and perhaps is valid for a lot longer than a concession?
Incidentally do you have a URL for this info? I know someone who is preparing an English translation of these little DGAC quirks..
flyingfemme
I don't think any # of hours' training is adequate compensation for lack of an AP (and, more than likely if no AP is present, for lack of decent equipment generally) in single pilot IFR. It's extremely hard work no matter how you do it, unless you do it all the time. And very few people do it all the time even if they fly IFR all the time; the general idea is to get up VMC on top whenever possible. But all people that do it regularly (that I know of) have an AP anyway, plus a good plane.
You can get training in your own plane already, no restrictions I am aware of if 100% owned by you. You can train for a UK/JAA license/rating in a G-reg or for an FAA license/rating in an N-reg, entirely in the UK. Some instructors claim all training must be done "under the auspices of a flight training organisation" so you have to become a paid up member of their school/club to make it legal... What did you have in mind?
Forcing N-reg owners to be US-based would upset an awful lot more than private pilots; there are many N-reg commercial (cargo etc) operations all over the world, plus Caribbean passenger operations, etc.
2Donkeys
What you appear to be saying is that an American with an FAA IR visiting France can rent an F-reg plane and, subject to getting the endorsement from the DGAC, he can fly IFR. That is in line with most other countries AFAIK; an endorsement is required but generally obtainable in each case. The UK CAA won't give an FAA IR full IR privileges in a G-reg plane but will give you the full IMC Rating; this comes close and perhaps is valid for a lot longer than a concession?
Incidentally do you have a URL for this info? I know someone who is preparing an English translation of these little DGAC quirks..
flyingfemme
I don't think any # of hours' training is adequate compensation for lack of an AP (and, more than likely if no AP is present, for lack of decent equipment generally) in single pilot IFR. It's extremely hard work no matter how you do it, unless you do it all the time. And very few people do it all the time even if they fly IFR all the time; the general idea is to get up VMC on top whenever possible. But all people that do it regularly (that I know of) have an AP anyway, plus a good plane.
You can get training in your own plane already, no restrictions I am aware of if 100% owned by you. You can train for a UK/JAA license/rating in a G-reg or for an FAA license/rating in an N-reg, entirely in the UK. Some instructors claim all training must be done "under the auspices of a flight training organisation" so you have to become a paid up member of their school/club to make it legal... What did you have in mind?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really have anything in mind.....
Just a view that less flight training for a private pilot is not a particularly good idea and flying with less kit is tougher.
As far as I was aware IR training needs to be done "under the auspices of an APPROVED training organisation". In other words - the ones that cost mucho bucks and don't really have a flexible outlook. If you know different I would be happy to hear it.
I understand the US training system - I used it.
As far as I was aware IR training needs to be done "under the auspices of an APPROVED training organisation". In other words - the ones that cost mucho bucks and don't really have a flexible outlook. If you know different I would be happy to hear it.
I understand the US training system - I used it.